No Such Agency:Yeah because nobody ever controlled a vehicle with information being projected into their FOV before.

[www.aviationnews.eu image 400x266]

If people were gonna use the Glass to display speed, direction, navigational info, etc, I'd agree with the sentiment, but you know damn well that people would be using the Glass to update FB/Twitter or surf porn while they were driving.

And, of course, it will be about as effective and enforceable as the "No Texting While Driving" law.

My girlfriend got pulled over for the "no texting" thing. She had just changed the song on her very old school iPod. The cop acted like he'd never heard of a device that didn't have texting capabilities... before he let her go "with a verbal warning". Yeah, real effective. Even if it had been a iPhone with the text app open and a half-written message sitting in the field, good luck proving that is exactly what the person is doing when the police officer saw them.

Treygreen13:And, of course, it will be about as effective and enforceable as the "No Texting While Driving" law.

My girlfriend got pulled over for the "no texting" thing. She had just changed the song on her very old school iPod. The cop acted like he'd never heard of a device that didn't have texting capabilities... before he let her go "with a verbal warning". Yeah, real effective. Even if it had been a iPhone with the text app open and a half-written message sitting in the field, good luck proving that is exactly what the person is doing when the police officer saw them.

In my county they would just ticket you for distracted or reckless driving. There is no need to "prove" anything. And if you want to contest the ticket the traffic court fee is larger than the ticket even if you win.

omnimancer28:Treygreen13: And, of course, it will be about as effective and enforceable as the "No Texting While Driving" law.

My girlfriend got pulled over for the "no texting" thing. She had just changed the song on her very old school iPod. The cop acted like he'd never heard of a device that didn't have texting capabilities... before he let her go "with a verbal warning". Yeah, real effective. Even if it had been a iPhone with the text app open and a half-written message sitting in the field, good luck proving that is exactly what the person is doing when the police officer saw them.

In my county they would just ticket you for distracted or reckless driving. There is no need to "prove" anything. And if you want to contest the ticket the traffic court fee is larger than the ticket even if you win.

Worth it to keep it off your record, and to further inconvenience anyone who is willing to bring a fraudulent charge against you. If I'm innocent, I fight it regardless of cost. The only thing sweeter than getting a ticket thrown out is getting it thrown out while the cop who issued it is sitting there.

Treygreen13:And, of course, it will be about as effective and enforceable as the "No Texting While Driving" law.

My girlfriend got pulled over for the "no texting" thing. She had just changed the song on her very old school iPod. The cop acted like he'd never heard of a device that didn't have texting capabilities... before he let her go "with a verbal warning". Yeah, real effective. Even if it had been a iPhone with the text app open and a half-written message sitting in the field, good luck proving that is exactly what the person is doing when the police officer saw them.

I got pulled over for something like that and showed the cop that not only was my phone sitting in the GPS dock with the GPS app on, it was playing music through my radio at the same time; a situation that requires two hands and leaning far forward to accomplish. I'm pretty sure had I not had my phone in that situation i would have been ticketed at the time. The only thing I can think of was maybe I was picking at the dirt under a fingernail when the cop saw me.

Treygreen13:Worth it to keep it off your record, and to further inconvenience anyone who is willing to bring a fraudulent charge against you. If I'm innocent, I fight it regardless of cost. The only thing sweeter than getting a ticket thrown out is getting it thrown out while the cop who issued it is sitting there.

FYI, in most places around the country, the officer's word is sufficient evidence for guilt, just like failure to stop at a stop sign, etc.

Not saying you cannot win, but I will say that I see quite a few people just pleading guilty to that one here in MD.

mattharvest:Treygreen13: Worth it to keep it off your record, and to further inconvenience anyone who is willing to bring a fraudulent charge against you. If I'm innocent, I fight it regardless of cost. The only thing sweeter than getting a ticket thrown out is getting it thrown out while the cop who issued it is sitting there.

FYI, in most places around the country, the officer's word is sufficient evidence for guilt, just like failure to stop at a stop sign, etc.

Not saying you cannot win, but I will say that I see quite a few people just pleading guilty to that one here in MD.

I've learned in my time dealing with the courts that knowing the right lawyer is the key to getting into their system of dealing with the tickets. Usually the threat of "we're willing to go to court and you're going to need to actually present evidence" is enough to get it bargained down or tossed out.

Seems like most of the time even paying the lawyer is just indirectly paying the court. It's mostly a big corrupt extortion ring. Not that I'm revealing anything surprising there.

Also, anyone else buying billboard space for when the google glass is more universally accepted? I'm going to get one on a busy street or public area with a giant QR Code that when scanned opens right up to Lemon Party or Goatse. Stick that in your eye you techno farks.

AngryDragon:So they want to pass a law against a product that doesn't exist yet for a risk that no one can quantify, but seems unfounded.

At least they're having a debate about emerging technology, which is proper and fitting. The "ban guns" crowd wants radical abatement of technology that has been freely available in this country for hundreds of years.

Triumph:At least they're having a debate about emerging technology, which is proper and fitting.

No, it's not proper and fitting. We currently have a society in which anything not specifically prohibited, is allowed. In order to continue in such a manner, our laws must be reactive, not proactive. We must determine that something is actually an issue worth writing laws about before we write the laws. To do otherwise draws us ever closer to tyranny.

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat:No, it's not proper and fitting. We currently have a society in which anything not specifically prohibited, is allowed. In order to continue in such a manner, our laws must be reactive, not proactive. We must determine that something is actually an issue worth writing laws about before we write the laws. To do otherwise draws us ever closer to tyranny.

I mean the Bar that banned them was more of a publicity stunt than anything else, but sheesh.

Yeah, it seems that a lot of people are tripping over themselves to be the one who decries the idea the fastest or the loudest.

Personally I can't see anything wrong with them whatsoever. To me they're step one. They don't have to be awesome and perfect, because they're the first step. It will improve. I can see a lot of potential for them in every part of life, just like I could in smartphones from the beginning, but the best part is the bits I didn't anticipate. I'm excited for the future. In 10 years they'll be Googly Eyes. Donate your real eyes to blind 3rd world folk, and have these implanted, and you can zoom, record video, take pictures, and analyse peoples clothing to see if it fits you.

Triumph:AngryDragon: So they want to pass a law against a product that doesn't exist yet for a risk that no one can quantify, but seems unfounded.

At least they're having a debate about emerging technology, which is proper and fitting. The "ban guns" crowd wants radical abatement of technology that has been freely available in this country for hundreds of years.

To be fair, it's not exactly comparable. Technologies for Murder get their own category, don't they? Shouldn't we strive for less of that?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating banning them. I'm advocating waiting a hundred years more until the last gun maniacs look like heavy-browed savages too terrified of the world to function.

Triumph:Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: No, it's not proper and fitting. We currently have a society in which anything not specifically prohibited, is allowed. In order to continue in such a manner, our laws must be reactive, not proactive. We must determine that something is actually an issue worth writing laws about before we write the laws. To do otherwise draws us ever closer to tyranny.

Congratulations. You just argued for closing down the FDA.

No he didn't? Most of the FDA's work is done based on ways that people have already been hurt by unregulated product. Not to say "all," of course, but don't be fatuous.

Triumph:LasersHurt: To be fair, it's not exactly comparable. Technologies for Murder get their own category, don't they? Shouldn't we strive for less of that?

So what about the emerging technology of drones? You can rig those to be deadly in any number of ways.

Interesting points raised all round but you're all going off topic. Ultimately not everything is deserving of equal treatment in life. Somethings warrant regulation, some don't. Some warrant being checked for safety before they reach the market and some don't. It's just a simple fact of life.

Until we've seen how much of the field of view these things take up then we can't say for sure whether or not they're more or less distracting than an existing sat-nav stuck on a windscreen. No one should be regulating anything until we know.

Triumph:LasersHurt: To be fair, it's not exactly comparable. Technologies for Murder get their own category, don't they? Shouldn't we strive for less of that?

So what about the emerging technology of drones? You can rig those to be deadly in any number of ways.

What about them? My larger point is "let's all strive for a world where we don't kill each other, or live in fear of being killed by eachother. Any thing designed for killing would, in some way, be related to that.

Slaxl:Interesting points raised all round but you're all going off topic. Ultimately not everything is deserving of equal treatment in life. Somethings warrant regulation, some don't. Some warrant being checked for safety before they reach the market and some don't. It's just a simple fact of life.

Until we've seen how much of the field of view these things take up then we can't say for sure whether or not they're more or less distracting than an existing sat-nav stuck on a windscreen. No one should be regulating anything until we know.

While WVA is making the safety argument, I agree that they should wait and see. But, I think the privacy issue is more interesting. The thing about Google glass that I wonder about is that the video camera is allegedly always sending video back to Google and that's a black hole in terms of privacy. You can see a situation where some government agency it needs "eyes" somewhere and instructs Google to let is see the feeds from all Google glasses in a certain area.

According to just about everything I've read about them. The glasses have no memory storage capacity at all. If they are on, in order for them to function, they have to send data from the glasses back to Goggle and then Google sends data back to the glasses.